Gender and Sex in Italian film

So I have watched two Italian movies in the past couple of weeks that both treat gender and sexuality in starkly different ways, though they were both made in 1974 and both were directed by women, ironically.

Lisa Wertmuller's film Swept Away is a story about an upper-class woman and her lower-class servant getting stranded on a deserted island together, where they experience a switching of dominant/submissive roles in both class and gender constructs. Rafaella is haughty, self-indulgent and ignorant of the ways in which other people in the world are oppressed. Gennarino is a Communist from South Italy who takes the opportunity to teach Rafaella her place and a lesson in humility, as personal vengeance against the oppressions of the upper classes of North Italy. They fall in love, or so Wertmuller would have the audience believe, but in the end when they return to civilization, Rafaella abandons Gennarino to rejoin her privileged world.


Turning this perception of the good class/bad class on its head is Wertmuller's portrayal of traditional gender roles on the island. This Wertmuller makes no attempt at complicating in the least. Rafaella?s character does not represent a changing self-consciousness in the status of women but a reversion of such. Yes, she verbally assaults Gennarino before and during their stay on the island, but Gennarino eventually resorts to physical and sexual violence in order to teach Rafaella not only the significance of her class status but also her place as a woman. This attitude is further evidenced by Gennarino's similar treatment of his wife upon their return from the island. Throughout the film, it tries to convince the audience that not only does Rafaella submit to physical, emotional and sexual abuse to survive but that she enjoys it, so infatuated is she with Gennarino. Though it is revealed in the end that Rafaella feigned this enamoredness, she endured far more than what was necessary for her to survive. Therefore I cannot find any evidence of a progression of women's status in this film, only a regression of feminist values. Gender violence cannot be justified as an allegory for class and political revolt. Constructs of gender cannot be analyzed separately from those of class, and this film attempts to do that by complicating one without doing the same to the other.

Touching on similar themes but in completely different ways is Liliana Cavani's controversial film The Night Porter. It's controversial because it's a love story between a Nazi officer in a concentration camp and one of its Jewish prisoners and their (completely consensual) sadomasochistic relationship (yikes). Yet somehow, Cavani seems to pull it off without being offensive, because they meet again in 1957 and renew their relationship. The way in which it is different from Swept Away in its treatment of the S&M relationship is that the couple does not stay in prescribed gender roles. Each shows dominant and submissive aspects, masculine and feminine, completely turning the gender construct on its head. The genuine love story in a war-torn setting combined with the S&M aspects basically make it a Casablanca meets Secretary kind of film. I'm not trying to compare the films, though I highly recommend both of them. The film does not resort to physical violence of one gender using force to control the other, as is evident in Swept Away. While Lucia (the Jewish woman) seems completely the submissive or the "bottom," (in one scene he ties her down with a chain), Max (the former Nazi) is completely at her feet, submitting to her every whim even while they play their parts. In this way gender roles are reversed and perverted, with the feminized man and the butch woman, so to speak: Lucia is stoic and defiant, as a man is expected to be, while Max is emotional, temperamental and entreating toward Lucia, which are traditionally "feminine" traits. There are some very touching scenes - such as when you discover that Lucia kept a dress that Max had given her in the camp for 15 years. In addition to gender, there is also major threads of homoeroticism running through the film, suggesting that Max had an affair (whether physical or emotional) with a male Nazi dancer before he met Lucia. Practically every scene is dripping with sexuality, even objectification, while still maintaining its human aspects.

As you can probably tell, I loved The Night Porter and basically loathed Swept Away. If both involve sadistic and masochistic elements, what is the difference between them? In Swept Away, violence against women is used as revenge, control, and to show dominance of men over women. In The Night Porter, there is physical violence sometimes used, yet there is a cyclical nature to who is dominant and who is submissive and rejects gender structures. There are also queer aspects of The Night Porter in which norms of morality are questioned, which is probably why it is so controversial. Swept Away, despite its desperation to shock and arouse with its sexual scenes, merely serves the dominant heterosexist and misogynist agenda that people are so used to.

What is the more important issue?

When we set up table at the Organization fair last Friday, an awkward new grad student was the first guy to come up to us. He asked interestedly what V-day was about, and I gave him the generic responses, thinking that he'd nod and then move along. Then he stopped when he saw the V-day platform which states "Rape, incest, sexual slavery and genital mutilation must stop." He pointed at it and said, "Where does male circumcision fall into that?"

His question threw me off guard, and I had to think about it for a second. I guess he thought I was avoiding the question because he leaned in, scrutinizing my expression. I tentatively answered with "Well, it's a very controversial issue. I have my own views about it, but some may equate it female genital mutilation in the East." I explained to him that V-day mainly refers to female genital mutilation in parts of Africa and the Middle East, in which girls are horrendously mutilated by having their clitoris cut off or their vagina sewed up until marriage. The guy said he understood but that "male circumcision can fall into that too. Some of us are absolutely traumatized by the experience." 

This was the main path that our conversation took. And to be honest, it kind of irritated me. I'm not saying that issues such as male circumcision are not important to talk about. But when we are trying to talk openly to people about women's issues, sometimes they have a way of immediately transmuting it into a man's issue. On the other hand, my Transnational Feminisms professor pointed out to me when I related this story to her that Western feminists sometimes have a way of objectifying the East as backwards, misogynist, and savage. Not that female genital mutilation isn't all of those things, but this guy was actually pointing out that the West in some ways is no better than the East - we have our own forms of mutilation here, except that they are performed by a doctor instead of a midwife with a shard of glass. Personally, though, I like that I can live in this country not living in fear that I'm going to have my clit hacked off.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

• Book reading: The Hunger Games. OMG, yay for young adult post-apocalyptic literature. And a heroine in the lead, no less!

• Music listening to: Dar Williams, various albums. I'm trying so hard to get into her, but compared to Ani, most folk singers seem downright docile.

• Last movie watched: The Duchess. Damn good movie. Tiny lesbian(ish) scene between Kiera Knightly and Lady Bess, yum. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as always.
  

Coming Up

I like that the Women's Studies/GLBT studies section of Barnes and Noble is way in the back corner...it means that only the people who care go back there. It is my safe haven. Sometimes I just like to go and sit in that corner and soak up the feminist spirit, as if all the feminists and queer activists of the past are whispering encouragement in my ear.

V-day is starting up again. I haven't done a damn thing, or at least feel like I haven't. I know it will happen one way or the other. I feel so ambivalent about V-day now: trying to get it together is so stressful that I wonder if I want to do it anymore, but like my V-day goddess Georgia says, I cannot bear to hand it over to anyone else at the moment. Are you out there, my beautiful V-warriors? We need your help now. Seriously, just email me.

Meanwhile, I'm doing my own little personal research project on bisexuality and the main differences between gay&lesbian and bisexual experience. The best book I've come across so far is "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner, the author of the wonderful Manifesta. It's got a broad perspective but is still achingly personal about Baumgardner's relationships with men and women. Sometimes it stumbles into the pitfalls of "why sex with women is better than with men," but for the most part it is pretty balanced.  I'll let you know when I find out more.

• Listening to: The Science of Things by Bush. Like it okay, so far. Moody but attractively understated.

• Most recent movie watched: Across the Universe. Oh my, it's beautiful. I get something different out of it everytime I watch it, whether it's issues about war&violence, gender&sexuality, race, class or anything. Julie Taymor is a genius.

• Reading: The Heart of Yoga, and The Mummy by Anne Rice.

Jumping on the Hatewagon

It's funny how a good sports scandal can bring out the worst in people. As much as I would like to avoid such topics, some are so ubiquitous that I feel compelled to address them (such as Tiger Woods.) Mike Leach was fired last week for the alleged mistreatment of one of his players. Since then, there has been a firestorm of controversy as to whether it went down the way Adam James says it did. Did Leach really lock him up in an electric closet or just trying to let him rest? Was the other guy there to guard the door making sure he didn't leave or to get him water? Who knows, but that's not really what I'm interested in. There has been a surge of support for Mike Leach - Team Leach shirts, "Bring back Leach" groups on Facebook with a million members in it. You know what people are saying about Adam James, the alleged victim? One of my friend's Facebook statuses said, and I quote, "[James] should crawl back into his closet...like the little bitch that he is." And there were many more like it last week. There has been a slew of hatemongering, and it's all been directed at James.  The reason this situation disturbs me is because it is eerily similar to the situation a rape victim finds herself in when she comes forward to accuse someone who is held in high esteem, such as, I don't know, a sports player. All the hate and judgment is directed toward the victim. The victim is put on the stand instead of the accused. And I want to point out that after the bowl game a lot of players came forward in support of their teammate, and feel like things are better off without Leach. I think that says something about the strong bond a team can have, which is one of the positives of team sports. Football is considered by many to be a practice of hegemonic masculinity (thanks Dr. Dunham), but I do believe there are positives to this kind of masculinity as well. It seems to be the fans that are the problem. Hate is not going to bring Leach back. And I don't understand why they are so loyal to him when in fact he is not very loyal to Tech, as evidenced by all the crap he pulled with renewing his contract last year. Whether James's allegations are entirely true or not, what disturbs me is how eagerly people will jump on the Hatewagon in support of a sports coach. A sports coach. That's all he is, seriously - he's not a hero or an activist, and he certainly isn't an angel. He does not deserve the pedestal the fans put him up on just because he was fired. He did this to himself, and I firmly believe it was not without reason.

Shout-Out

It's been a good semester, tough but good. I've had some amazing professors over the years, especially in the Women's Studies department. I'm fascinated by powerful women in academia - their personalities, their mannerisms, and their relationships with their students. I've noticed that a lot of my female professors are brilliant but tend to be guarded, maybe because of "show-no-weakness" philosophy that male professors just don't really have to contend with. This can come off to a lot of people as being pedantic or stuck-up. But I've never found that with any of my mentors, they are all incredibly brilliant, fascinating women, and I feel privileged to have gotten to know them. I really admire and have the best relationships with professors who challenge me, who demand excellence from me but are willing to help me get there, especially with my writing. I remember particularly one of my undergraduate English professors tore my first paper apart (which made me cry) but then sat down with me and really worked with me on recognizing my strengths and how to improve. She essentially picked me up and threw me out into the deep end of the water, but knowing that I could swim ultimately. I am a better writer because of her.

Therefore, I'd like to thank all of these women who have had such a tremendous impact on me, who have made me a better student, a better feminist, and a better person: Sheila Garos, Tricia Earl, Marjean Purinton, Lynn Fallwell, Esther Lichti, Laura Calkins, and Kanika Batra. I can't thank you all enough for all you've done for me, you have been my mentors and I have loved getting to know you. You've made my university career the amazing experience it was.

Sexual Fluidity and Body Image: Does one protect the other?

I was talking with two very close friends of mine who were sharing with me the body-image issues they've had since childhood. I finally asked them, "So when did your issues with your body start?" They both said, "I've always thought I was fat." This made me incredibly sad, because I think they are both beautiful women, on the inside and the outside.

One them showed me pictures of her as a teenager, beautiful and healthy, standing next to girls in her high school who were stick-thin. "You see why I always thought I was fat? I was comparing myself to these girls." Didn't it occur to them that maybe these girls had body issues as well and were leading unhealthy lives just to get as thin as they were?  It particularly disturbed me when the other one said, "Even when I was exercising and losing weight, I was never satisfied. I always thought I could lose ten, twenty more pounds." I reminded her that that was the whole point of an eating disorder - someone who, no matter how thin they get, they always look in the mirror and see this ugly, fat monster. Someone who is genuinely mentally and physically ill.

Of course, both as a psychology major studying eating disorders and a feminist, I've long been aware of how the media promotes rail-thin women, to the point where anorexia for models is the sexy thing to do. Case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS2mfWDryPE

But at the same time, for me personally, I've never understood that mentality, even as a kid. When I saw magazine pictures of beautiful, thin women - not necessarily unhealthy, but slender - I wouldn't compare myself to them, I'd think "Man, she's hot." I appreciated her beauty without coveting it in any way. Why was I immune when I should have been socialized to believe I should look like them? I have a few theories - first of all, unlike a lot of middle-class white mothers, my mother never pushed any body issues on me. She never once commented on my appearance or my weight, (except maybe that I eat like a bird and should eat more, lol.) And when some asshole broke my heart, my father would always be there tell me how beautiful I am and that any man would be lucky to have me. It never really occurred to me that not all parents are like that.

But like I said, when I would see these images of beautiful women, I appreciate them wholly. Instead of comparing myself to them, like it's a competition, I take them for what they are - women who are lucky enough to have the money and time to look like they do, though this will not necessarily make them happy. Maybe it's because I have a genuine love and appreciation for the human body, both male and female. I think it's a wondrous piece of machinery, and that convinces me it could have never occurred by accident. And sometimes I wonder if my sexual fluidity actually worked as a protective factor against that kind of socialization that strives to tell girls they will never be pretty enough, thin enough, etc. I don't know if this is the case for all sexually fluid women, but it would be an interesting study. Why do we teach our women (and increasingly, men as well) that our bodies are our enemies, to be controlled and tamed? I'm not saying we should be downing "Krispy Kremes and milkshakes, spending our days thigh-expanding" (in the wonderful words of Eve Ensler). We should treat our bodies well, by not overindulging it or constraining it unnecessarily. Descartes was full of shit - your mind, body and spirit are not separate - your body's health is integral to your mind's and vice-versa.

I'm not a lesbian, I just live with a woman...

Today one of my mentors, a woman I absolutely adore and admire, said something so strange I can't help but blog about it. I've met her female life partner, with whom she is raising a child. But today we are talking about sexual identity and she says, "I may live with a woman but I'm not a lesbian, there is nothing about me that is lesbian. I still miss men and I couldn't imagine being with a woman if I wasn't with [my partner.] My lesbian friends just tell me I can't come out, but I promise you, I'm out, out out!"

I was blown away. For the longest time I have identified her as a lesbian in my mind, not in any negative or stereotyped way but because that's what her current orientation is. Even though my experience has taught me that just because someone has same-sex relationships does not mean they identify as gay or consider themselves part of the LGBT community, the socialized part of my mind struggled to come up with a different way to categorize her: "Wait, if she's not a lesbian, what the hell does she identify as?"

I had to consciously stop myself from doing this, to accept that she just is what she is: a bad-ass woman who is excellent at what she does and a wonderful mentor. Honestly, in the grander scheme of things, her sexual identity doesn't really matter. The only problem I really had with what she said was the particular phrase, "There's nothing lesbian about me." It made me wonder then what her construction of a lesbian is. If it is not a woman who connects emotionally, romantically, and sexually with another woman (or women), then what?

I'm currently reading this book called "Sexual Fluidity" by Lisa Diamond (even though I haven't read much of it yet, I would recommend it). It's the first time any theorist that I've read has made a distinction between "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity." For example, a woman who dates men but has had sexual relations with women may still identify as predominantly heterosexual. We may try with all of our might to categorize these people, but we are quickly learning as feminist theorists that labels simply don't work anymore. My mentor today taught me just how true that is becoming.